3 ms·

Sure, but for something simple like an STD screen or cholesterol surely these results are unambiguous? The article says these tests can be "at a cost that is a

Sure, but for something simple like an STD screen or cholesterol surely these results are unambiguous? The article says these tests can be "at a cost that is as much as 80 percent less than going through a doctor", what can explain that kind of discrepancy besides rampant corruption in the "official" medical lab work market?

phren0logy 17y ago
Cholesterol: Probably. STD: Depends on which one. Cost: I don't know why the difference is so large; that seems like a serious problem. For what it's worth, I don't make a single extra penny on lab tests. As far as I know, most doctors don't (except maybe the pathologist who runs the lab). We just order what's indicated.
- carbocation 17y ago
  I must say that I take a slightly different position on cholesterol. People seem to have a very difficult time interpreting the different values, particularly as most people cannot distinguish HDL from LDL from TGs. Plus, ATP-III recommends different limits on LDL-C for patients with different risk factors. Would I say that the average person should be able to get a cholesterol test if they want it? From a rights/freedom standpoint, absolutely. Would I worry that they would misinterpret it without guidance? From a medical standpoint, absolutely.
  - phren0logy 17y ago
    Good point; maybe reading them all the time makes me underestimate what's involved.
Zak 17y ago
The cost of two office visits (an initial consultation in which the test is ordered and a second to receive the results) might be enough to account for the difference. The company mentioned in the article appears to charge $49 for a variety of tests.
pchivers 17y ago
The article says these tests can be "at a cost that is as much as 80 percent less than going through a doctor", what can explain that kind of discrepancy besides rampant corruption in the "official" medical lab work market? The difference is that one is paid for by a health insurance company, and the other is paid for out of pocket by the consumer. The second group is much more price sensitive.

phren0logy 17y ago

Cholesterol: Probably. STD: Depends on which one. Cost: I don't know why the difference is so large; that seems like a serious problem. For what it's worth, I don't make a single extra penny on lab tests. As far as I know, most doctors don't (except maybe the pathologist who runs the lab). We just order what's indicated.

carbocation 17y ago
I must say that I take a slightly different position on cholesterol. People seem to have a very difficult time interpreting the different values, particularly as most people cannot distinguish HDL from LDL from TGs. Plus, ATP-III recommends different limits on LDL-C for patients with different risk factors. Would I say that the average person should be able to get a cholesterol test if they want it? From a rights/freedom standpoint, absolutely. Would I worry that they would misinterpret it without guidance? From a medical standpoint, absolutely.
- phren0logy 17y ago
  Good point; maybe reading them all the time makes me underestimate what's involved.

Zak 17y ago

The cost of two office visits (an initial consultation in which the test is ordered and a second to receive the results) might be enough to account for the difference. The company mentioned in the article appears to charge $49 for a variety of tests.

pchivers 17y ago

The article says these tests can be "at a cost that is as much as 80 percent less than going through a doctor", what can explain that kind of discrepancy besides rampant corruption in the "official" medical lab work market? The difference is that one is paid for by a health insurance company, and the other is paid for out of pocket by the consumer. The second group is much more price sensitive.